Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Perhaps dark matter is simply matter that has been sucked through a black hole and presses itself against the universe from the other side of the fabric of space. Thus it contributes to gravitational mass but does not interact with matter in any other way. Discuss!

Let me see if I got this right: a bunch of scientists wanted to measure the mass of the universe. They did a bunch of calculations and then compared the results of the calculations to the observable universe and found that they didn't match and that the universe had much more gravitational pull than their calculations said there should be. So the scientists then said: "Hey, our calculations can't be wrong - the universe must be wrong." And they came up with the idea of some invisible matter to compensate.

Their calculations were supposed to conform to the universe, the universe isn't supposed to conform to their calculations.

Bad, bad science.

I will be utterly shocked if they ever completely confirm that Dark Matter exists.

I will be utterly shocked if they ever completely confirm that Dark Matter exists.

There are astrophysicists who've already declared dark matter "proven" in the same way that X-rays "prove" black holes, or traffic jams prove that roadways spawn cars. There simply couldn't be any other explanation! Occam's razor be damned! Modern astrophysics is like the current trend in safety razors with 6 blades—far too complex and completely unusable.

__________________
"No, I better not look. I just might be in there."
—Foghorn Leghorn, Little Boy Boo

I will be utterly shocked if they ever completely confirm that Dark Matter exists.

There are astrophysicists who've already declared dark matter "proven" in the same way that X-rays "prove" black holes, or traffic jams prove that roadways spawn cars. There simply couldn't be any other explanation! Occam's razor be damned! Modern astrophysics is like the current trend in safety razors with 6 blades—far too complex and completely unusable.

The simpler explanation would be that the method of measuring mass based on the brightness of stars is flawed. The mass of galaxies calculated based on their motion is heavier than the mass calculated based on their brightness. That's the root of the contradiction, and why they had to introduce "Dark Matter" that somehow, magically, is invisible and ONLY interacts with ONE of the 4 forces: gravity.

__________________
A movie aiming low should not be praised for hitting that target.

Sure, if you can tell me how to publish a paper in that field without having a degree in that field. I can't even publish an article in Archaeology Today without having a degree in archaeology.

I think you can. You don't have to have a degree and don't need a university to back you up (well, if you are willing to pay for the submission yourself). If the paper is good, if the science is sound, they take it.

But yeah, iguana_tonante's post is pretty much arrogant and condescending.

__________________
A movie aiming low should not be praised for hitting that target.

Sure it is. We've been sitting on the answers for over a century, since Birkeland. (I'm talking about laboratory tests here, not mathematical models.) Assuming that our mass measurements are wrong doesn't fundamentally change anything; you'll end up inventing more "dark matter-like" theories to make everything work. The H-R diagram isn't what it seems, either.

OK, now that I finished masturbating three times in a row to this story, I came to a point of a big disappointment. The mass doesn't add up. How come it is both in the black holes, photons from Hawking radiation and dark matter at the same time? Did dark matter made of our long-dead corpses come out of the black holes in the distant future like Nero did? Are we walking over our own cold corpses?

And to anyone who claims that dark matter is not good science – there is a reason that dark matter is the leading theory in where the missing mass is. If it was bad science or there was a "simpler" explanation to it (like mismeasurement) the scientists would have gone for it. Dark matter fits with the observations, it has been used to make predictions that have been experimentally verified and has been mapped on multiple occasions. To make a bad analogy, it's like claiming that NASA using Hollywood special effects is a simpler explanation to Apollo photographs than an actual Moon landing – an astoundingly true statement, but it does not fit the data. Both the Moon landing records and dark matter evidence are far too elaborate.

What's more weird is that there is nothing special about dark matter, and all the talk against it is some irrational dislike that has no grounds. Its existence would be no more weird than the existence of normal matter, which is already there. There is no reason for all matter to interact through the rest of the forces. And whatever is causing the mass discrepancy is not evenly distributed across space, so it has some carrier, and we call these things matter for some reason. If you like you can believe it is caused by, say, a random uneven distortion of spacetime, go for it, but it is mathematically the same thing.

Yeah, you are right, we shouldn't go around coming up with particles, matter and stuff for anything, particles, matter and stuff are expensive in their complexity, but we have exhausted the remaining options.

Sure, if you can tell me how to publish a paper in that field without having a degree in that field.

Maybe that should tell you something. Also, that's factually wrong, because you can: your work only has to pass the peer review examination, and it's done. Which is something that I doubt it will, but that's another story.

JarodRussell wrote:

But yeah, iguana_tonante's post is pretty much arrogant and condescending.

Well, that's pretty much my job here on the board. That, and being right most of the time.

Can you make sense out of press releases and TV programs that attempt to explain the newest astronomical ‘discoveries’ – things like invisible dark energy, warped 11-dimensional spaces, and black holes that spit out matter? If not, you have lots of company.
The time to search for some realistic, intelligent, scientific answers has arrived.

The gist of the book seems to be: "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong". Science!

The average informed person can understand and make rational judgments about these ideas.

No, they can't. Just like the "average person" can't become a neurosurgeon just because they'd really like to, the "average person" can't suddenly become an expert in astrophysics because "all that science-y talk is hard, man: let's make it simpler!".

All it requires is the time and patience to read and to think logically and critically about the issues.

No, it requires a lot more. Effort, study, talent and drive.

Some basic facts and a few new concepts will suffice.

No, they won't. Just like you need years of study and work to become an accomplished neurosurgeon (and let's not talk about an innovator in the field), you can't improvise astrophysical discoveries with "common sense", high school maths, and a unyielding belief that the universe must bow down to your personal ability to understand stuff.

The main goal of this book is to convince you, the reader, that you really do have both the capability and responsibility to make informed, critical judgments about the pronouncements of establishment science.

Then the goal is idiotic, because it doesn't work like that. Any idiot with delusions of grandeur can't make informed, critical judgement about the pronouncements of established science. It just ain't so.

What is it about cosmology and particle physics that attracts so many laypersons to throw their two cents in? Is it because those fields seem arbitrary and non-mathematical, so any idea is as valid as any other? There's a reason that an extensive background in physics is necessary to participate in the research. Reading Hawking's and Brian Greene's pop sci books doesn't make a person qualified to propose a hypothesis on the subject.